Literature DB >> 27491733

FABS: An Intuitive Tool for Screening of Stroke Mimics in the Emergency Department.

Nitin Goyal1, Georgios Tsivgoulis1, Shailesh Male1, E Jeffrey Metter1, Sulaiman Iftikhar1, Ali Kerro1, Jason J Chang1, James L Frey1, Sokratis Triantafyllou1, Georgios Papadimitropoulos1, Vida Abedi1, Anne W Alexandrov1, Andrei V Alexandrov1, Ramin Zand2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: A large number of patients with symptoms of acute cerebral ischemia are stroke mimics (SMs). In this study, we sought to develop a scoring system (FABS) for screening and stratifying SM from acute cerebral ischemia and to identify patients who may require magnetic resonance imaging to confirm or refute a diagnosis of stroke in the emergency setting.
METHODS: We designed a scoring system: FABS (6 variables with 1 point for each variable present): absence of Facial droop, negative history of Atrial fibrillation, Age <50 years, systolic Blood pressure <150 mm Hg at presentation, history of Seizures, and isolated Sensory symptoms without weakness at presentation. We evaluated consecutive patients with symptoms of acute cerebral ischemia and a negative head computed tomography for any acute finding within 4.5 hours after symptom onset in 2 tertiary care stroke centers for validation of FABS.
RESULTS: A total of 784 patients (41% SMs) were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic curve (C statistic, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.98) indicated that FABS≥3 could identify patients with SM with 90% sensitivity (95% CI, 86%-93%) and 91% specificity (95% CI, 88%-93%). The negative predictive value and positive predictive value were 93% (95% CI, 90%-95%) and 87% (95% CI, 83%-91%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: FABS seems to be reliable in stratifying SM from acute cerebral ischemia cases among patients in whom the head computed tomography was negative for any acute findings. It can help clinicians consider advanced imaging for further diagnosis.
© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  atrial fibrillation; diagnosis; emergency service, hospital; scoring system; stroke

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27491733     DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.013842

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stroke        ISSN: 0039-2499            Impact factor:   7.914


  7 in total

1.  A novel computed tomography perfusion-based quantitative tool for evaluation of perfusional abnormalities in migrainous aura stroke mimic.

Authors:  Antonio Granato; Laura D'Acunto; Miloš Ajčević; Giovanni Furlanis; Maja Ukmar; Roberta Antea Pozzi Mucelli; Paolo Manganotti
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 3.307

Review 2.  Diagnostic Error in Stroke-Reasons and Proposed Solutions.

Authors:  Ekaterina Bakradze; Ava L Liberman
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 5.113

3.  Experimental study on differential diagnosis of cerebral hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke based on microwave measurement.

Authors:  Feng Wang; Haisheng Zhang; Junlin Bao; Huaiqiang Li; Weihao Peng; Jia Xu; Jun Yang; Wei Zhuang; Xu Ning; Lin Xu; Liang Qiao; Mingxin Qin; Mingsheng Chen
Journal:  Technol Health Care       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 1.285

4.  Clinical features of stroke mimics in the emergency department.

Authors:  Yuichi Okano; Kazuaki Ishimatsu; Yoichi Kato; Junichi Yamaga; Ken Kuwahara; Katsuki Okumoto; Kuniyasu Wada
Journal:  Acute Med Surg       Date:  2018-04-10

5.  Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tools for assessment of acute stroke: a systematic review.

Authors:  Daria Antipova; Leila Eadie; Ashish Macaden; Philip Wilson
Journal:  BMC Emerg Med       Date:  2019-09-04

Review 6.  Pharmacological brain cytoprotection in acute ischaemic stroke - renewed hope in the reperfusion era.

Authors:  Marc Fisher; Sean I Savitz
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 44.711

7.  Clinical Differences Between Stroke and Stroke Mimics in Code Stroke Patients.

Authors:  Taekwon Kim; Han-Yeong Jeong; Gil Joon Suh
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2022-02-21       Impact factor: 2.153

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.